[OT] Advocacy (was: "Re: Universal sound card?")



<subject line changed due to off-topic drift>

mike wrote:

Aragorn wrote:

mike wrote:

Shoulda read this first, cause Ubuntu 8.04 is what I was downloading.
Here's what happened:

Decided to install within windows on a laptop. Seemed to be the lowest
risk solution.

Although this is an option, it is definitely one I do not recommend,
because installing it into a Windows filesystem requires that an
emulation layer is used in between the Linux-native filesystem used by
Ubuntu - presumably /ext3/ - and the Windows filesystem.

Believe it or not, but this kind of approach really bogs down your
performance as it keeps the kernel busy translating the filesystem I/O
all the time.

I believe it, but that's not the issue. I've used Virtual PC running on
an XP host to run Windows 2000 in which I run a tor-enabled browser
inside a sandbox. I did it just to see if I could and it ran
surprisingly well.

You are still using filesystem emulation, and depending on the particular
kernel version in your tested version of Ubuntu, performance may really
suffer from that.

Like I said, you should not underestimate that. And either way, it can be
easily verified.

Stuck in the Cd and clicked install. Sorry, charlie,you
need 256MB of ram...but I HAVE 256 MB of ram.

I don't really know the technicalities of an install to a file in a
Windows partition, but as I wrote higher up, this step requires an extra
translation layer which may eat up some of the memory seen by the kernel.

On the other hand, the kernel may even presume that there is less memory
in the system than there physically is, due to some memory addresses
possibly being mapped out as bad pages - in this case, the kernel will
mark them as "in use" by a dummy process, so that none of the real
processes can use those addresses.

You're shooting the messenger. Users don't want conjecture about why
linux is not working, they just want it to work.

That is not why I wrote the above. I was trying to be helpful at the
solving of your performance problem.

If however you feel that the simple existence of the problem is enough to
sway you away from GNU/Linux despite that the problem can be fixed or at
the very least traced back to its origins, then that is your choice, but
then you're wasting everyone's time here and then the contents of your post
become mere trolling.

"I have a problem. I don't want to know how to solve it.
I have a problem, period."

That's just complaining when you could be doing something about the problem,
and by then refusing to do something about it, you'd only be feeding the
already great impact of Microsoft's FUD machine on the newbies. Plus that
it's a sign of ingratitude towards all the helpful people in the GNU/Linux
newsgroups who are willing to guide you through.

Mind you that Windows will not report any bad memory addresses until it
tries to use them, because Windows does not perform any hardware indexing
or hardware sanity checks.

Yes, but memtest86 does...or doesn't in this case. Two computers, tested
memory...you're deflecting.

I was not deflecting. Like I wrote above, I am trying to help you track
down possible causes to the poor performance you're getting from your
Ubuntu install, and memory failure is a realistic option to investigate.

So you ran /memtest86/ and discovered nothing wrong with your RAM - which is
still not a conclusive test unless you've run it for days in a row, but
okay, I'm willing to accept that you did - and so we can rule out bad
memory from the equation at this stage. Good.

Tried another computer... same problem.

Did you also install it inside a Windows partition there? This is
important.

Yes I did. And I've done it many times with earlier distributions.

It's still not an advisable installation method. This kind of installation
is intended for demonstration purposes or a "first try" scenario for the
daunted who either do not wish to allocate free diskspace to GNU/Linux or
who are so habituated to Windows that they simply cannot accept the idea
that GNU/Linux is an operating system of its own that doesn't have anything
to do with Windows and doesn't want to be installed in a Windows partition.

It is possible to do what you've done - obviously ;-) - but this method of
installing is however not to be taken seriously for an intended serious
usage.

You should compare the fact that you can install most GNU/Linux systems into
a filesystem image inside file on a Windows partition with a free test
sample of something you would buy at the supermarket. It's a taster, no
more, no less. Only in this case, the taster won't perform as well as the
real thing, because of the technicalities involved.

Now, this is symptomatic of my experiences with linux. Somebody made
some arbitrary decision and didn't fully consider the impact of that
decision on users.

The main arbitrary decision in this case would be your decision to
install GNU/Linux in a file in a Windows partition, which does work as a
"test run working environment" but is not the intended use of the system
and can thus also not be expected to perform fully.

This is BS. The opening screen gives me two options. I chose one.
If it doesn't work under those circumstances, don't have the option.

Apparently it *does* work. However, as you can experience for yourself, it
does not perform optimally. See my comments above for the intended use of
this option.

If it REQUIRES 256MB, why won't it install on a system with 256MB of
memory and why can I tell it NOT to require 256MB?

See my above explanation. (1) You are not installing it as it should,
but instead you are forcing it to be installed in a Windows partition.
(2) You /may/ (or may not) have bad memory in your machine.

I'm not forcing anything. I picked an option supplied by the developer.
I've tested the RAM, it's not bad.

Yet it is so very curious that you - a person who claims to have UNIX
experience, and whom I am still willing to believe on your word about that
- would pick a by definition crippling way to run an operating system.

I other words: you picked the option that was least favorable to the
system's flawless operation. Perhaps it was consciously and on purpose, in
the hope that you would find something unfavorable about GNU/Linux, or
perhaps it was subconsciously out some dark and hidden desire for failure.

Only you know which of the above your motivation was, but that doesn't
change the fact that you chose something that was not the intended use of
the system. Every operating system deserves to reside on its own real
filesystems.

Try running Windows from a file on an /ext3/ partition and see how well that
goes. Not possible you say? Well, I guess Microsoft knew all too well how
badly it would perform under those circumstances - and given what I've read
about Vista performance, it doesn't even perform well under _normal_
circumstances - and that they thus chose not to offer that option.

GNU/Linux is Free & Open Source Software, which means that it's all about
freedom and choices. Just never forget that with every choice you make,
you also bear the responsibility for that choice. And even though
GNU/Linux is a UNIX-style operating system and this kind of responsibility
is all in UNIX tradition, most GNU/Linux distributors go out of their way
by a long shot to make the system more userfriendly.

I guess it's just too much to ask of some users that they become more
computerfriendly as well.

Ok, so use the magic incantation and wait almost an hour for Ubuntu to
checksum files and load 'em...error, can't read disk, do you want to try
again? Well, yes...but Ubuntu's idea of "trying again" is to START
OVER.

Ehm... What else did you understand as the meaning of "try again?"

this is the FIRST time I've experienced "start over". every other time,
try again means, "attempt to re-read the failed sector." You can often
remove the CD, clean off the fingerprints, put it back in and continue
right where you left off.

I've never seen that option with any of the distributions and the different
releases of the particular distributions that I've installed on any
machine. Your mileage may vary on that.

An hour later, same errror. Burned a new CD. An hour later, same error.
Replaced the CD drive. An hour later, same error.
Copied the cd to the hard drive and tried to install from there.
Windows didn't have any problems reading the cd and copying it.
Sorry, Charlie, can't install from hard drive.

Of course that wouldn't work. What were you thinking?

"Of course" assumes you know something. It's OFTEN possible to install
stuff by copying the CD contents to the drive and installing from there.

Sure, in Windows. Or in GNU/Linux, if the stuff you've copied is placed on
a GNU/Linux-native filesystem.

The point is that a GNU/Linux installer actually boots a Linux kernel and a
runtime userspace environment. As such, even the installer is a real
UNIX-like system and requires a real UNIX-like filesystem with support for
UNIX permissions masks and file ownerships to run from. How would you
expect such a system to work on a filesystem that does not support UNIX
permission flags and ownerships?

Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that it boots from a CD or DVD, and
that those filesystems also don't support UNIX permissions masks and
ownerships. True, but not quite. A GNU/Linux installation CD uses a
RAM-based root filesystem which is loaded from a compressed archive on the
CD/DVD.

Copying the .iso file and installing from the HD worked. Why would you
expect that to work instead???

Because the /.iso/ file contains an archive which is expanded in RAM as a
root filesystem, and loading the kernel into memory only requires the
bootloader to read the correct offset to the kernel image and the initial
RAM filesystem.

Had it not been for the encouragement in this thread, I'd have
said (expletive deleted)-it and gone out to do something more
fun than pulling out my hair.

Perhaps if you had started with a *proper* install instead of with a
scenario full of potential problems?

Again, shooting the messenger. If there's a box to check and a
install button, I expect, no DEMAND, that it work.

So if I give you a gun, does that mean you can shoot just everyone? Either
way, it *does* work. It just doesn't work as adequately as it would when
using it as it was intended to be used. And if you think that an operating
system is really designed and intended to be used from inside the
filesystem of another and alien operating system, then you know far less of
operating systems than you purport to know.

More googling.
Gotta copy the .iso file to the hard drive and install.
An hour later, it's installed...well it reboots. Turns out it takes
much longer to actually install.

Yes, due to the fact that you're not installing it on a native filesystem
but in a file inside another filesystem of a hostile (excuse for an)
operating system, of which the specifications are not free and change all
the time in order to sabotage interoperability.

This is crap. Typically, anti-piracy issues have to do with the thing
you're installing, not the host. I've had MUCH grief with M$'s attempts
to prevent installs, but never do to the MS host I'm installing on.

I'm not talking of anti-piracy measures. I am talking of Microsoft's
efforts to make sure that Windows is used as the only operating system on
that machine. Microsoft has been making it hard for other operating
systems to be installed alongside of Windows for many years already.

There is even documented evidence about how they deliberately made Windows
3.x crash when it was run on top of DR DOS instead of on MS-DOS - despite
that there were no reasons whatsoever as to why Windows 3.x wouldn't work
on DR DOS. They simply built in a routine that detected the DOS version,
and that would cause Windows to crash after a random period of time if that
version of DOS was not a Microsoft product.

(The internal memos pertaining this subject between Microsoft's management
and their developers have leaked out not too long ago, and a link was
provided on Slashdot. Couldn't have been more than four weeks ago, I
think, but my sense of time is a little blurry lately, so I hope you'll
forgive me for that.)

Similarly, they also made it very hard to get to BeOS during the days that
PCs were being sold with Windows and BeOS in dualboot configuration, and in
which case BeOS was installed inside its own /BeFS/ filesystem - just in
case you want to point to the fact that BeOS 5.0 Personal Edition required
being installed in an image file on a /vfat/ partition, which was
deliberately chosen that way by the Be guys to stimulate the purchase of
the far more functional commercial version of BeOS.

Agian, developer decisions that significantly impact the user experience
based on (aparently) complete ignorance of that usere expereince.

No, more like a user decision not to Read The /Fine/ Manual and look for
trouble where there was none to begin with.

I don't care whether it's an operating system or a lawnmower. You should
be able to get basic functionality without reading ANY manual.

And you do. But if you've got your mind set on looking for trouble, then
trouble will come looking for you. And that's what you've found yourself
at.

Try this...
Average Joe or Jane goes down to the car dealer to buy a new car.
Big sign says, "BEST car you ever had...can't be beat, Better than
FORD..." so they stop in.
They open the door and get in. The steering wheel is off to the side.
The footpedals are backwards for better ergonomics. They can't make the
radio work.

I'm pretty sure they could get the radio to work, albeit that they may not
be able to automatically store all available stations or do some of the
other nifty stuff that modern car radios offer. That's why there are
manuals.

The go back inside to ask the salesman some questions.
He gives them a stern look and points to a big sign on the wall that
says, "RTFM".
Wanna bet the salesman doesn't work on commission? At least not for long.

See what I wrote above. And then even still, you're talking of a commercial
product. GNU/Linux is not developed as a commercial product, it is
developed purely as an operating system striving for technical perfection.

In your particular case, Ubuntu is not even available commercially - unlike
for instance TurboLinux, which is available commercially only, or unlike
Mandriva, RedHat/CentOS/Fedora or SuSE, which are available both as freely
downloadable versions or as commercial offers.

I don't know about your whereabouts, but over here, we have a saying "Don't
look a gifted horse in the mouth." Considering your deliberate choice for
a complicated and /unnative/ installation, I'd say you have little reason
to complain, and little to complain about.

Haven't linux developers ever heard of alpha testing or focus groups?

Yes they have. However, installing GNU/Linux in a file inside a Windows
partition is not an intended focus, and manuals are made to be read.

One more time, if there are two check boxes on the installation page,
they're BOTH an intended focus.

One more time, just because it is there doesn't mean that it's the intended
use. If you can't grasp that idea, then you haven't got the simplest clue
of operating system technology.

And I repeat: try getting Windows to install or work from inside a GNU/Linux
filesystem.

Oh, and by the way, up until Vista, Windows could be installed in both a FAT
(WinNT 4.0)/FAT32 (Win2K and WinXP) filesystem and in an NTFS filesystem.
In WinNT 4.0, FAT was even the default, and from what I've been told, NTFS
was the default in WinXP.

Yet with FAT/FAT32 not even offering support for the ACLs needed to
implement the security management in Windows - which can only be construed
as a serious illustration of how security is totally bypassable in Windows
- what do you think Microsoft would advise as an filesystem for Windows
itself? (I'm not talking of data filesystems here.)

There is intended use, and there is "a bonus method". You chose the bonus
method over the intended use, and now you're complaining. It's as simple
as that.

I pulled out the card and stuffed in an old Prism 16-bit card. The
network came up and I could surf the web. Cool. Good thing
that it came up automatically, cause I couldn't have configured it.

Probably not without looking around and reading manuals, no.

Networking is a thorny issue, cause you can't look around if you can't
connect to look around for how to connect.

*/usr/share/doc* would be a good place to start. It's got lots of /HowTos/
in HTML format. Just click up any filemanager/browser - Nautilus should
work if you're in Ubuntu with the Gnome desktop - and browse.

In addition, since you've installed GNU/Linux in a filesystem image in a
file on a Windows partition, you also have Windows at your avail to connect
to the internet and surf to...

http://www.tldp.org

.... where you find even more /HowTos,/ or to perform a Google search with
"Linux + networking" in the box.

So, after all that fuss and muss, I'm pretty impressed with the
improvements in the last year. One nagging problem that hasn't been
fixed is lack of user feedback. Some programs have the linux equivalent
of the windows hourglass to tell you it's busy doing something. But
many actions don't give any feedback at all. I tend to get impatient
and click it again. A minute later, several instances pop up. Lack of
feedback is unacceptable for actions that take more than a second or so.
In general, I find linux feels much slower than windows on the same
machine.

All of what you describe above leads me to believe you've got some
process hogging away on CPU cycles, and my guess is that it's the I/O
translation layer in the kernel, due to the fact that you've installed it
in an emulated filesystem environment. Do not underestimate this factor.

I'm not buying that argument.

Too bad for you, because it's valid.

If I run virtual PC on XP and load linux on top of that, linux
is running on EMULATED HARDWARE and will run much slower...although
it's pretty snappy in that mode.

Emulating hardware to trap hardware kernel operations is still quite a
different thing from using a filesystem emulation layer. I will not make
any claims regarding the performance of each or how those performances
compare to eachother. I'm just saying that it's a different thing.

The way Ubuntu is loading, it's booting/running native code on native
hardware.

But not on a native filesystem.

The hard drive is embedded into the Windows OS file system, but all
Windows has to do is mark a bunch of sectors used, unmovable and stay
out of it.

This filesystem image may have been created in a non-contiguous manner,
which could impede performance. Furthermore, it is not a native usage as a
filesystem image is an abstraction from an actual filesystem.

Linux has the option to create anything it wants inside those disk
sectors. There's no reason it HAS to be significantly slower.
Yes, there's some overhead, but it shouldn't have to be a lot.

Obviously for that particular machine, it's too much to still offer snappy
performance.

Now, if I were lazy, I might do it differently and suffer the slowdown.
But linux guys are typically anything but lazy.

It would be a lot faster if you gave it its own native filesystems. And
additionally, I would look into the 3D thing.

Performing 3D operations in system RAM and via a framebuffer driver is quite
a different experience from having a video driver that actually supports
hardware 3D acceleration. Not just in terms of speed, but also in terms of
response.

Either way, you can check what process is hogging your CPU, and whether a
process *is* even hogging your CPU.

Start with...

uptime

That'll tell you the load average of the last minute, the last five minutes
and the last fifteen minutes, respectively.

Then you can use /top/ (in a commandline console window) or any of the GUI
system monitors to look at what process is eating away most of your CPU
time.

A second problem may be that - or so I believe - Ubuntu comes with the
Compiz Fusion window manager, which uses 3D hardware videoacceleration,
and if the 3D acceleration of your video adapter is not supported by the
driver - possibly you may need to install the proprietary driver first -
then this will be emulated in software (and in RAM, rather than in video
memory) and will also yield a very slow user experience similar to what
you're describing. 256 MB may then even be a bit too little.

I shoulda been more clear. The system I eventually got it loaded on has
320MB of ram. I've installed many linux variants on many different
hardwares over the years. Compared to the contemporary windows version,
linux has always "felt" slower. Benchmarks don't mean nothin' if it
"feels" slower.

I have never experienced GNU/Linux to be any slower than Windows. I would
even say that on certain hardware, it's quite a lot faster than Windows.

Still, the video driver issue is still worth investigating. And no, before
you accuse me of moving the goalposts, I've already pointed this out in my
previous reply as well - as you can see above - although I am being more
descriptive of the difficulties in this reply here.

A related issue is the system not keeping up with typing speed.
You bang on the keys and entry into the text box just stops for seconds
at a time. Even when it doesn't halt, I can often type faster than the
text shows up on the screen. Very disconcerting, 'cause I don't type
all that fast.

Yes, all of that agrees with what I wrote above.

The problem with typing should have nothing to do with this.

Yes it does. If a process is eating up CPU cycles, then all other processes
have to line up in the queue to be executed. That includes keyboard and
mouse input.

If I use Adobe Acrobat Reader on this system here - which somehow always
defaults to a 500% viewsize, then the mouse becomes virtually unusable.
And just before you say something about that as well, /KGhostView/ - part
of the KDE desktop suite - allows me to page through /.pdf/ files without
any problems.

If I need to access anything more than a ram buffer to enter
text into a box, something is seriously wrong with the program,
or the underlying OS.

Entering the text into a RAM buffer is the easy part. Rendering that text
on the screen is another one, particularly if you have your graphical
environment trying to perform genuine 3D rendering via software emulation.
And then the unnative filesystem access may also create additional
overhead.

Again, you should investigate what is hogging your processor, and it is
trivial to do so. Perhaps you will now say that it's not so trivial for
Joe Average, but your self-proclaimed experience with UNIX makes you all
but a Joe Average, so you've lost the prerogative to hide behind that
excuse.

I tried installing a different music player. That went without a hitch,
although I thought 40MB of stuff downloaded was excessive for a music
player.

Perhaps you needed more than just the player, i.e. dependencies, such as
video/audio codecs or other shared libraries.

Yep, I understand. But Windows requires the same stuff. Also, there's
already codecs on the system, cause the other player worked.

Different players might require different codecs - I'm actually not
well-versed on this particular subject - but my guess is that it simply
needed additional libraries to support functionalities in the program that
were not already part of your base installation.

Years ago, I bitched a LOT when the registry replaced win.ini and it's
cousins. It was darn difficult to figure out how to fix stuff when
it was all jumbled together. I'm shifting back the other way
because the registry allows a lot of sharing that would otherwise
reaquire multiple instances of basically the same DLL code.
If I understand what I'm reading, windows is shifting away from the
registry again. It's always something.

The Windows Registry is every software engineering teacher's dream of a
textbook example on how it should *not* be done. Well, so is everything
else about Windows, for that matter.

Windows is an evolution and modernization of the single-user concept and of
MS-DOS, which was *designed* - by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer, not by
Bill Gates - to be used on standalone single-user machines without hard
disks. That's why Windows still uses drive letters, and that's why
security features, false-pretense multi-user functionality and networking
are all bolt-on and easily bypassable.

I wrote my first computer program in 1967. I've got advanced
engineering degrees. I've managed hardware designs for unix
workstations. I don't claim to be an ubergeek, but
I oughta be able to do this.

Then why are you putting yourself through so much trouble by deliberately
blocking your knowledge of how a computer is supposed to work and
deliberately choosing non-standard install procedures that hold a recipe
for disaster?

Two check boxes, I guess they're actually mutually exclusive radio
buttons, one install button == disaster??? The disaster is making it
an option if it doesn't work.

I will not repeat what I have written above this higher-up and in previous
posts. I think I've made my point pretty clear already, and I also think
you're deliberately being obtuse about it.

"If you can't make it work, it's because you're a windows idiot." A
more productive reaction might be to consider that everybody is not a
geek and improve the user experience.

From what you write higher up, you're not exactly a computer novice. Yet
a lot of what perspires through your attitude is telling me that you are
deliberately _playing_ dumb, without _being_ dumb.

One talent I have is to be able to step outside the box and view the
world from the perspective of a novice user.

No, you are wrong. Your talent is that you *only* identify with the
computer novice, and "computer novice" is actually an incorrect term here.
It should actually be spelled out "GNU/Linux novice", because ironically,
people who've never had prior exposure to Windows actually get the hang of
GNU/Linux a lot faster than those who've been habituated to Windows for
many years.

Your additional logical fallacy lies in the assumption that GNU/Linux is a
commercial good, intended to be sold, and existing solely according to the
principles of a capitalistic market. Just because GNU/Linux *does* have a
small market share - the word "market" in the commercial sense of the word
- due to the endeavors of commercial GNU/Linux distributors doesn't mean
that the system was developed for that reason.

If I thought linux had anything I really needed and couldn't get anywhere
else, I'd figure out how to make it work.

And here we are. All the while I was still giving you the benefit of the
doubt, and all the while you were fooling me, leading me to believe you
were having a hard time getting your system to work as desired and looking
for a solution.

So now you're finally taking off your mask and exposing yourself as a troll
- because that's what you are if you're deliberately seeking to create
problematic circumstances in order to give you a reason to complain, and
then refuse to accept any viable help in solving those problems.

I write this crap to expose the linux zealots to problems mere mortals are
having when trying to use linux. Blaming the user is a practice best left
to the customer support center for your favorite company.

The only exposure here is of you being a self-confessed troll. And it is
quite typical for Wintrolls to have a totally warped view on what GNU/Linux
is, what it's intended for, how it is developed, and how it compares to
commercially offered proprietary software such as Windows.

A few changes to make it palateable to the novice user would be
a VAST improvement in the user experience. Never push a rock up hill
when you can get to the same place going downhill.

When I first installed GNU/Linux, I didn't have an internet connection at
home yet. So there was no such thing as Google for me, or Usenet, or other
GNU/Linux forums. At the same time, the distribution I installed as my
first GNU/Linux experience was /Linux-Mandrake/ 6.0 PowerPack, which back
then wasn't even half as forthcoming as modern distributions are. Yet, I
did not experience _*any*_ problems.

The problem is not that GNU/Linux is not userfriendly enough, because it is.
It is actually even far more forthcoming towards Windows users - and there
does seem to be a higher degree of difficulty getting Windows users to
embrace GNU/Linux than getting a Mac user to work with GNU/Linux - than I
personally like.

Already, most desktop-oriented GNU/Linux distributions come with all kinds
of Windows-like features, and even Windows-like desktop themes - Linspire
or Xandros, anyone? - turning the system into something it is not: a
Windows substitute.

GNU/Linux is a UNIX-style operating system. That means it's a multi-user
system, and thus it should not have to sacrifice on security measures just
to offer the Windows addict a Windows experience.

No, the problem isn't with any alleged userunfriendliness on the part of
GNU/Linux. The problem is that Windows users are either addicted to
Windows and wanting to try GNU/Linux because they want a Windows that's
free of charge and because they heard someone say that it's safer and more
stable, while they are actually far too indoctrinated by the image
Microsoft presents them of computer technology, *or* that they simply are
so conservative and narrowminded that they can't possibly conceive anything
other than a world with Windows and proprietary, commercially distributed
operating systems (and application software.)

The above-described two reasons are what makes the GNU/Linux experience hard
to grok for Windows users. GNU/Linux itself has nothing to do with it. On
the contrary, even.

Make it user friendly and they will come...

Translation: "Turn it into a free (of charge) Windows and they will come."

Well, I am neither Linus Torvalds nor Richard Stallman, but I seriously
doubt that GNU/Linux will evolve into a Windows clone, and quite frankly, I
wouldn't have it that way if it were up to me anyway.

Yet if you can't open up your mind past your Microsoft indoctrination, then
by all means, go back to using Windows. Free Software is about choices, as
I have already said, and thus you are free to choose to use proprietary
software of an archaic and stupid design, released commercially onto the
market while its vendors know that the coding is still full of bugs, if it
makes you feel any better.

Just don't come trolling here if Windows is your choice. You should then
just use your Windows and leave us alone. We don't come over to any
Windows newsgroups and bother you guys there either.

Yet, if I suddenly decide to turn left when on my immediate left there
isn't a road but a house, then I will wreck my car and induce some
domestic disturbance to the inhabitants of that house. The bottom line:
I could drive my car the way I'm supposed to, or I could do something
irrational and smack into a house on purpose.

It would be my choice. And you're acting like you're just aching to
smack into a house while at the wheel of a very fine car, and then blame
it on the car.

Quirks that you "work around" every day can be show stoppers for the
uninitiated. How simple the solution is not nearly as important as how
widely known the solution. Better yet is NOT to need a solution.

Okay... First of all, you've picked a very unlikely scenario for a
production system and then you also refuse to solve the issues arising from
that. Secondly, I myself have never experienced any of the problems you're
reporting.

If your goal was to create problems - while at the same time steering away
from the freely offered advice that could help you solve those problems -
then you have no reason and no right to complain. It's that simple.

Like it or not, the way Windows works is the way all computers have to
work.

You mean they all have to use backwards concepts from single-user
personal computers that only had floppy drives, have you running all
processes with administrator privileges, be open to any kind of virus
infection by the way execute permission is handled, with the concepts of
"security", "memory management", "filesystem organization", "interprocess
communication" and "stability" all being implemented with the same slack
jaw as is expected from the drooling click-addicts looking at the 5000
USD names of simple operating system components and menu items?

I'm gonna say, "EXACTLY"! When are you guys gonna get your heads outa
the sand and pay attention to customers.

I don't have any customers, and GNU/Linux does not have any customers
either, given that it's an operating system designed *to* *work,* not to be
sold. There's a distinct difference there.

I will let you in on a little secret - well, it's no secret really; I don't
even see why on earth it should be. I'm a musician. Yet I don't make any
records. Why? Because I'm a musician, not a businessman.

And most commercial music is crap anyway. Why? Because it's intended to
get sold, and the best success at selling music is to make it appeal to the
broader masses. That means that you have to sacrifice on quality, and if
you do that, then you're compromising on your artistic talents - I am not
speaking of supercommercial musicians/singers whose talent is basically
very limited and who were specifically contracted to cover such markets,
like Britney Spears or the whole plethora of /gangsta/ /rappaz/ out there.

GNU/Linux is like jazz. Some people will like it and others won't. Those
who like it are the ones whose minds are open to what it really is. Those
who don't like it are those who lack the basic ability to open up their
minds. And those who are in between are the people who don't really care
and just stick with the Windows license they've been shoved down their
throats when they purchased their computer.

End of story.

Customers don't give a damn about interprocess communication.

Except when they find out that they have some virus, trojan, spyware, adware
or whatever other malware exists, because then they suddenly and magically
want it fixed.

They want youtube, myspace, letters to grandma, webcams, voip, etc.

Been watching some YouTube videos for the last couple of days, actually. I
don't own a webcam and I don't use VoIP. My grandmother's been dead for 14
years already. Yet I do send e-mails, I do type up other documents, I surf
for information all the time, particularly on scientific subjects - I'm not
going to get into my reasons here; that's beyond the scope of this reply -
and I do a bunch of other stuff that people generally do at a computer,
along with some technical stuff that average computer users generally do
not concern themselves with.

Never had any problems. Well, apart from hardware problems, but those were
not problems pertaining to hardware support in GNU/Linux. They were
problems with failing hardware, period.

The less they know about what's under the hood, the better.

I will not argue with a man who thinks it is better to keep the people
stupid.

If I could figure out how to turn off the password, I would.
And yes, I wanna be administrator.
And that damned popup everytime I want to do something is reminiscent
of Vista...but vista at least makes it easy to turn off.

Then by all means, *use* Windows and don't harass the people who want to use
something other.

You want a Windows system, fine. I want a UNIX system, and GNU/Linux gives
me a UNIX-like system with a great license, which fully embodies my
political views. You don't have to like it. Just accept that it is my
prerogative.

And please, please, keep your mouth shut about something you cannot agree
with simply because you are deliberately unwilling to understand, because
if you do not understand something, then you cannot argue its paradigm.

If I can't make it do what I want, it don't
matter how great the interprocess communication.
Calling windows users names is not helpful.

I wasn't calling Windows users any names - I was calling Windows itself
names. Yet, I _am_ calling you a troll, and that is exactly what you've
confessed to being higher up in your reply.

Windows surely ain't perfect, but I can stick in the CD,
click install, have coffee, input my user name, have some more
coffee...when I come back, I'm writing letters to grandma.

.... and collecting the necessary software to have other people remotely use
your computer for sending spam and spreading viruses to infect the machines
of other Windows users with. Very noble indeed!

Now, if you want to run a webserver, that's a whole other
paradigm. Hire yourself a linux guru and get 'er done.

Don't have to. I can set that up myself. But then again, I can read
manuals, and I'm not too tame to do exactly that.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] My experience with 10.0/10.1 (long)
    ... - Serve NFS for UNIX/Linux ... Serve SMB for Windows ... filesystem, then look to Andrew Filesystem. ... the inability to set up networks during the install, ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: [opensuse] 10.2 is turning into a nightmare
    ... that the newer kernel also solved. ... konq windows seem to freeze, last night yast failed to complete installation ... decided to install), open office windows crash once in a while, things seem ... or four releases with a few critical but subtle changes, more features but... ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Newbie problems galore
    ... > all that stuff requires rebooting into Windows. ... you don't need to upgrade the kernel to use XFree. ... card should work with the vesa driver, ... I am sure you can install the network driver from source as well to work ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Rootkit
    ... I know Windows from about XP have a kernel but it really ... No where could I find mention of a Linux rootkit. ... That's why it's a good idea to install chkrootkit. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: microsoft tactics getting ugly - seizing control of hardware
    ... hardware drivers utility automatically detected and installed for me. ... install it from repos) and install it on various machines. ... its windows version/ is pretty much non-existent. ... The only way to get it (on ubuntu 12.04, with 3.2 kernel) sort ...
    (uk.legal)